Except for the teensy-weensy little fact that it's against the law for a resident of one state to buy a firearm in another state. And yes, that's a Federal thing.

I hope you'll be able to show me _that_ law at least. In states with no mandatory check for private sales, that is demonstrate not to stop the sales. The lax laws in those states undercut the federal law. Demonstrates the need for uniform federal laws regarding gun purchases.

I hope you'll be able to show me _that_ law at least. In states with no mandatory check for private sales, that is demonstrate not to stop the sales. The lax laws in those states undercut the federal law. Demonstrates the need for uniform federal laws regarding gun purchases.

Laser guided bunker busters trump every fucking thing else, too. The only nation in the world that has 'em doesn't give a shit about your weapon cache.Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.

(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;

(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;

This makes the case for better federal laws. The law you quote is unenforceable unless you intend to set up inspection stations on every border crossing of every state (manpower and expense etc, etc) - and is only effective after a crime to nail the perp with an extra charge. Mandatory background checks would _also_ filter out out of state purchasers and _prevent_ that crime. Worried about cost? Support it with transaction fees for gun purchases (a few percent), and the licensing fees. The strength of federal background check and registration law would add preventative teeth to the out-of-state purchase law, and make the triad far more effective than the current single fed law and patchwork of state laws. Overall reduction in legal infrastructure (two federal laws instead of multiple, differing state laws), and simplicity of rules.

This is still going on my first two proposed laws. I've got a friend - gun owner and staunch defender - with a workable four-leveled permitting idea. Much more nuanced, and detailed - and also federal.

This makes the case for better federal laws. The law you quote is unenforceable unless you intend to set up inspection stations on every border crossing of every state (manpower and expense etc, etc) - and is only effective after a crime to nail the perp with an extra charge. Mandatory background checks would _also_ filter out out of state purchasers and _prevent_ that crime. Worried about cost? Support it with transaction fees for gun purchases (a few percent), and the licensing fees. The strength of federal background check and registration law would add preventative teeth to the out-of-state purchase law, and make the triad far more effective than the current single fed law and patchwork of state laws. Overall reduction in legal infrastructure (two federal laws instead of multiple, differing state laws), and simplicity of rules.

This is still going on my first two proposed laws. I've got a friend - gun owner and staunch defender - with a workable four-leveled permitting idea. Much more nuanced, and detailed - and also federal.

Seriously? Of course the law is enforceable. Here's a case where a California resident arranged to buy a few dozen firearms from an Arizona gun dealer. He had a valid, state-issued Arizona ID, showing that he had an Arizona address, but the BATFE believed that the gun dealer should have known the purchaser was an out-of-state buyer and refused to make the sales. The purchaser and dealer both were charged with the crime, and both plead guilty as part of a plea deal. FWIW, reliable sources informed me at the time that the main reason the gun dealer agreed to the plea deal was because he had spent $250,000 on his defense, and ran out of money. The BATFE has virtually limitless funds to spend on prosecuting such cases.

So tell me again since the laws actually ARE fully enforceable, why they need to be replaced at great expense to the taxpayers of our fair nation? And tell your friend that if he's in favor of a national form of licensing, or permitting, or registration, that he's making the same mistake that poor and middle-class people make when they vote Republican. He's fully working against his own interests.

Seriously? Of course the law is enforceable. Here's a case where a California resident arranged to buy a few dozen firearms from an Arizona gun dealer. He had a valid, state-issued Arizona ID, showing that he had an Arizona address, but the BATFE believed that the gun dealer should have known the purchaser was an out-of-state buyer and refused to make the sales. The purchaser and dealer both were charged with the crime, and both plead guilty as part of a plea deal. FWIW, reliable sources informed me at the time that the main reason the gun dealer agreed to the plea deal was because he had spent $250,000 on his defense, and ran out of money. The BATFE has virtually limitless funds to spend on prosecuting such cases.

So tell me again since the laws actually ARE fully enforceable, why they need to be replaced at great expense to the taxpayers of our fair nation? And tell your friend that if he's in favor of a national form of licensing, or permitting, or registration, that he's making the same mistake that poor and middle-class people make when they vote Republican. He's fully working against his own interests.

Wow. You really don't see it. You can't or you won't, I don't know which. A gun dealer? Of course that can be found and tracked. Gun dealers have to do do a background check. In most states, as you perfectly well know yet choose to ignore, private and several other kinds of sales *don't*. They bypass that entire enforcement regime, and you know it. Your entire argument here is a red herring because it does not address the issue at all. Show me how the interstate laws stop un-background checked gun purchases without inspections at every state border crossing.

Of course its complete nonsense as the Japanese knew that they did not have the firepower to invade the US and defeat the US military before subduing the local population was an issue. The point of attacking Peral Harbor was to break the US blockade and enable the Japanese conquest of China, Korea and South West Asia. The Japanese rightly assumed that the US would not let Japan get into a position where it could invade the Americas.

It had absolutely nothing to do with home ownership of guns.

Disarming a population is much easier than the gun.nuts imagine. The US army even has a protocol for doing so which is what they were doing in Iraq. The reason it did not work there was that the insurgent groups had an entire infrastructure to re-arm them.

I don't think that we are going to see Iran helping re-arm the NRA.

Lord Byron, you ever hear the saying, it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt? You just opened your mouth. Japan attacked pearl harbor. they did not attack the mainland US. Furthermore, they attacked pearl harbor, a military base, via an air raid. This is far different that an invasion where they would have to subdue our citizens. They're are multiple accounts and documents stating their primary reason was the large percentage of citizens that owned guns.

Rather than try to argue a point with a military officer well versed in US military history, I suggest you run along and play with something more your level of knowlegde. Might I suggest Legos?

Wow. You really don't see it. You can't or you won't, I don't know which. A gun dealer? Of course that can be found and tracked. Gun dealers have to do do a background check. In most states, as you perfectly well know yet choose to ignore, private and several other kinds of sales *don't*. They bypass that entire enforcement regime, and you know it. Your entire argument here is a red herring because it does not address the issue at all. Show me how the interstate laws stop un-background checked gun purchases without inspections at every state border crossing.

You're the one that can't see it. Evidence shows that your ideas don't work. Evidence shows that the current system does work. People that choose to go outside the system will be able to no matter what system is put into place. Even if you had enough troops to go door-to-door in every house, apartment, tent, RV, sleeping bag, and cave in the world, and could destroy every single firearm presently in existence, you would have new ones made the next day. They ain't exactly rocket science to build. Shit, they make fully functional, fully automatic AK 47's in huts over in Pakistan, for God's sake.

Show me evidence of any American jurisdiction where your ideas have been tried, and they actually worked to reduce crime. Don't bother telling me that it's because they've never been tried on a Federal level (or planet-wide, for that matter) -- that's a total cop-out. If they're going to work on a global scale, they'll work on a local level as well. Show me someplace where they've been proven to work. Either that, or show me some different ideas that actually do work.

You're the one that can't see it. Evidence shows that your ideas don't work. Evidence shows that the current system does work. People that choose to go outside the system will be able to no matter what system is put into place. Even if you had enough troops to go door-to-door in every house, apartment, tent, RV, sleeping bag, and cave in the world, and could destroy every single firearm presently in existence, you would have new ones made the next day. They ain't exactly rocket science to build. Shit, they make fully functional, fully automatic AK 47's in huts over in Pakistan, for God's sake.

Show me evidence of any American jurisdiction where your ideas have been tried, and they actually worked to reduce crime. Don't bother telling me that it's because they've never been tried on a Federal level (or planet-wide, for that matter) -- that's a total cop-out. If they're going to work on a global scale, they'll work on a local level as well. Show me someplace where they've been proven to work. Either that, or show me some different ideas that actually do work.

No evidence you've brought has actually shown that these ideas can't work on the federal level. You've brought conjecture and red herrings, and insisted that the hodgepodge of state laws is directly analogous to potential uniform federal laws without a shred of evidence to that assertion. The current system clearly does not work when our firearm murder rate exceeds that of all other first-world nations by factors of 5 to 50 (our firearm suicide rates are rather worse). The fact they are so easy to make and so easy for teh eeevil people to get their hands on doesn't actually make the gun crime rates in Europe or Japan anywhere remotely close to ours.

The two ideas I've proposed (which again, I don't lay claim to - they've been around a long time) are by definition national solutions. I wouldn't expect them to work on local or state levels for reasons I've already delineated. If the rules aren't the same everywhere in the country, then they can't work. It is quite the opposite of a cop-out - it's a defining characteristic.

No evidence you've brought has actually shown that these ideas can't work on the federal level. You've brought conjecture and red herrings, and insisted that the hodgepodge of state laws is directly analogous to potential uniform federal laws without a shred of evidence to that assertion. The current system clearly does not work when our firearm murder rate exceeds that of all other first-world nations by factors of 5 to 50 (our firearm suicide rates are rather worse). The fact they are so easy to make and so easy for teh eeevil people to get their hands on doesn't actually make the gun crime rates in Europe or Japan anywhere remotely close to ours.

The two ideas I've proposed (which again, I don't lay claim to - they've been around a long time) are by definition national solutions. I wouldn't expect them to work on local or state levels for reasons I've already delineated. If the rules aren't the same everywhere in the country, then they can't work. It is quite the opposite of a cop-out - it's a defining characteristic.

Still and all, you've never answered a single one of my questions. This should be an easy one for you. If "teh eeevil people" can get around our present laws so easily, how will they not be able to get around yours?

Of course some dedicated souls will attempt to circumvent any laws put into place. And some will succeed. This is true of almost every law on the books. This does not make those laws worthless. "Better not make that new law because some people will break it" is the least convincing - and least rational - reason to oppose a new law that I know of.

I've never claimed that someone dead set on obtaining a firearm by any means would be stopped by these two simple laws. That is not the point of those rules - and you know that, too. No law is a panacea. And you also know that group of people is not responsible for most of the gun deaths in this country. And you also know that there are people like that in every country, yet the rates in all other first world countries do not approach ours.

A significant amount of crime - gun crime included - is opportunistic in nature. Make things just a little bit harder, and get a payoff in significant reduction. New York city is a general example of this idea.

For gun crime in general, even low hurdles like background checks on all sales, and national registrations will prevent a significant number of opportunistic crimes and tragedies.

just putting in my 2 cents as an owner and one who believes in the 2nd amendment. First the mass shootings that seam to plague us are terrible but it is not from a complete lack of control or regulation but from a lack of people valuing a human life. Second while I enjoy shooting sports and actively participate in them I know as the gun owner that I must keep control and informed of my weapons location,status, and several other factors of firearm safety. While not currently able to conceal and carry in my state I will as a form to protect myself and those around me if god forbid I find myself in one of these terrible situations. Finally I understand the legal difficulty in obtaining one of these firearms the correct and lawful way. I also have several weapons that I have had passed do though my family, and understand how easy it is to get one of these weapons illegally/ build one from parts that come out of a water heater. So all and all I almost want to see guns taken away gust so every one see how useful and valuable they are.

The week before this terrible crazy jerk killed those poor children the leftist reporters were crying for blood saying that Union thugs had a right to kill durning the mob sceene in the north. (Both on MSNBC AND FOXX). Then they turn around and cry out saying they are against viloence. Everyone is against jerks like this. And some jack ass gives out peoples names and address who followed the law and registered their guns. But the same paper takes the side of not protecting our borders and didn't come down hard on our own Justice Department arming slavers and drug runners in Mexico that killed Mexicans and Americans. So it makes you question their real beliefs.

This is like being against a war. If you say you are anti war (and all Americans are) then you are against BOTH sides fighting. But if you protest only against one side then you are pro war. There were no antil war groups during Viet Nam, they were all pro communists and the same about the wars we are in now. If you are going to protest then do it for all crimes not just the ones you think our politicaly correct.

The School District did all it could short of ringing the school with an armed posse. He broke thru the barriers and killed the people who tried to stop him. He was a nut and except for our liberal laws, would have been in a mental hospital instead of being free to kill his own family member and these innocent kids. So if you are against guns then require stronger mental and criminal back ground checks before a gun is purchased. Hey, people are going to buy guns just as they buy pot. Both are dangerous, but you can't stop it so the next best thing is to control it. Remember we have laws that say killing is a crime. Yet our courts and law makers do not hang killers or keep them from society forever. They even allow them, when in prison, to mix with other priisoners and many kill again while in prison. I'm not asking for a leftist police state, but just laws that protect innocent people and when broken punish those to the full extent. This guy if taken alive would be put in a mental hospital and then later released (a hospital recently released a cold blooded killer because he was "well" now.) We all except the fact that child molesters will always be child molesters so we restrict them to where and what they can do even after they serve their time. Killers will always be killers. So we should restrict their movements for the rest of their life as well.

Getting rid of all guns is like saying you want to get rid of all armies. It just is not going to happen. Even in countries like Eurp. where they have very strong gun control, they have killings by guns. Just because something is outlawed doesn't mean outlaws are going to obey the law. If you make the owners of weapon companies responsible the way they made tobacco companies responsible for their product they will want to control how their product is handled the way tobacco companies now do. The thugs who were hired by the corrupt union bosses in the two northern states along with teachers and medical personnel broke the law, were violent and destroyed public and private property. They broke the law, but nothing ws done. Americans were murdered in North Africa and our own govert. people in top level were responsible and nothing was done. We have laws, lets use them and make sure that pepole who break these honest laws are punished. And if someone needs mental help, let's give it to them.

Look, before anyone starts sending me any hate mail, I'm just expressing my opinion. I do not own a gun, not a single one. I have had to carry them because the military makes me, but I don't like them, despite being an expert marksman.

First, I think the world would be much better off if we didn't have guns. I think the world would be much better off if we didn't have nuclear weapons. I think the world would be much better off if we all lived in peace and there was no war. But that's not the real world.

In the real world, guns exist. But guns aren't the enemy, it's the criminals that use those guns. No amount of gun regulation is going to keep those guns out of the hands of criminals. The war should not be focused on guns, but rather on the criminals that use them. I don't have a problem with Joe Blow down the street buying a gun to protect himself and his family. I do have a problem with a person buying a gun in order to commit a crime. To me, the solution starts with stricter penalties for violent crimes and background checks to make it harder for criminals to get a gun.

Still, that's just the tip of the iceberg. The real problem is the violent culture we live in. It's not the fault of video games or television either. It's the overall acceptance of violence as an answer. I believe it's also the tendency to blame everyone else except the offender. It's that tendency that allows those that commit rape and other violent offenses to be freed after minimal sentences, only to commit crimes after they are released. We have to change our culture. We have to make it "not okay" to treat others with such disrespect. We have to make it safer, where people no longer feel the need to arm themselves.

Again, I'll remind you that I don't carry a weapon or even own one. I usually didn't even carry one when I served in Afghanistan (despite being ordered to), and when I did, it wasn't loaded. Still, I can understand and appreciate why others do feel that need. And I believe it should be an individual choice to do so. At the same time, if they use it inappropriately, I feel they should suffer the consequences.

With that, let me post a few statistics. I know statistics aren't perfect and are often biased, but the sources are highly credible in these cases in my opinion.

A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"This at least suggests, from a criminals perspective, that gun ownership does deter and prevent crime.

*At the current homicide rate, roughly one in every 240 Americans will be murdered.*A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once* A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime."This certainly justifies public fear and their "need" to protect themselves.

*Nationwide in 2008, law enforcement agencies reported that 55% of aggravated assaults, 27% of robberies, 40% of rapes, and 64% of murders that were reported to police resulted in an alleged offender being arrested and turned over for prosecution.*Currently, for every 12 aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders committed in the United States, approximately one person is sentenced to prison for committing such a crimeA 2002 U.S. Justice Department study of 272,111 felons released from state prisons in 1994 found that within three years of their release:• at least 67.5% had been arrested for committing a new offense • at least 21.6% had been arrested for committing a new violent offense• these former inmates had been charged with committing at least 2,871 new homicides, 2,444 new rapes, 3,151 other new sexual assaults, 2,362 new kidnappings, 21,245 new robberies, 54,604 new assaults, and 13,854 other new violent crimesTo me this attests to the weakness of our criminal justice system and the need for longer prison sentences.

*Of 1,662 murders committed in New York City during 2003-2005, more than 90% were committed by people with criminal recordsShows the need for? Longer prison sentences-definitely. Stricter penalties for those who commit violent crimes, yes. A change in culture that does not glorify violence--please. But is more regulation going to keep criminals from getting a gun? Is there any evidence suggesting enacting stricter gun regulations on law-abiding citizens decreases murder rates?

Washington DC: In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976. It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2008. From 1960-1976, when the law went into effect, homicide rates were fairly steady, ranging from 10-38 per 100,000. They continued to stay about 30 per 100,000 until 1985 and then shot up to around 80 per 100,000. They slowly declined back down to 30 when it was repealed. Now I don't know what if any confounding variables existed in that 1985-2005 era, but homicide rates did increase 73% after the ban was implemented, while national rates declined 11%.

Britain: In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales. Since that law was implemented, homicide rates have increased 15%.

Chicago: In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect. In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.

Florida: On October 1, 1987, Florida's right-to-carry law became effective. This law requires that concealed carry licensees be 21 years of age or older, have clean criminal/mental health records, and complete a firearms safety/training course. Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.

Texas: In January 1996, Texas's right-to-carry law became effective. This law requires that concealed carry licensees be at least 21 years of age (or 18 years of age if a member or veteran of the U.S. armed forces), have clean criminal/mental health records, and complete a handgun proficiency course. Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect.

In other words, multiple locations that have banned guns or made it more difficult for citizens to protect themselves have increased murder rates after those measures were implemented. Meanwhile, laws that made it easier for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves had lower murder rates. Again, I don't like guns and if you could get rid of them all and make us safer I'd be all for it. But this doesn't suggest that, and if you allow yourself to think like a criminal, it makes perfect sense.

Of course some dedicated souls will attempt to circumvent any laws put into place. And some will succeed. This is true of almost every law on the books. This does not make those laws worthless. "Better not make that new law because some people will break it" is the least convincing - and least rational - reason to oppose a new law that I know of.

I've never claimed that someone dead set on obtaining a firearm by any means would be stopped by these two simple laws. That is not the point of those rules - and you know that, too. No law is a panacea. And you also know that group of people is not responsible for most of the gun deaths in this country. And you also know that there are people like that in every country, yet the rates in all other first world countries do not approach ours.

A significant amount of crime - gun crime included - is opportunistic in nature. Make things just a little bit harder, and get a payoff in significant reduction. New York city is a general example of this idea.

For gun crime in general, even low hurdles like background checks on all sales, and national registrations will prevent a significant number of opportunistic crimes and tragedies.

So we agree that it doesn't matter what laws you enact. Criminals will find a way around them. Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

Question #2: What makes your new laws better that those laws already on the books? Or is that question "irrelevant"?

We've seen facts quoted here that show crime increasing in areas with stricter gun laws enacted, while crime rates have decreased in areas where more user-friendly concealed-carry laws are in force. We've seen actual data from a wide variety of test groups (American cities, suburbs, and rural populations) statistically sufficient to represent the country as a whole. The data doesn't support your position. So far, the only thing supporting your position is your word, your opinion. If that's the case, why should I take your opinion over actual hard, empirical data?

Look, before anyone starts sending me any hate mail, I'm just expressing my opinion. I do not own a gun, not a single one. I have had to carry them because the military makes me, but I don't like them, despite being an expert marksman.

First, I think the world would be much better off if we didn't have guns. I think the world would be much better off if we didn't have nuclear weapons. I think the world would be much better off if we all lived in peace and there was no war. But that's not the real world.

Let me start off by thanking you for your service. I can appreciate your point of view. And thank you for your post. This one, and most others of yours that I've read are very well-thought-out, and bring much to the discussion. I have no problem with the idea that you don't like guns - that's okay. They're not for everybody.

For me, they're a lot of things. They're an intrinsic part of my martial arts training, they're viable tools for providing sustenance for my family, and they're a really fascinating hobby. One of the things that fascinates me about them is the fact that they're such intricately-designed pieces of mechanical engineering. All the parts have to be made just precisely so, and they have to all work together in just such a tightly-controlled way that if any one component fails, they'll either not work, work but not terribly well, or they'll just flat-out explode.

I'd never take the position that someone that hates guns must own one, or must be forced to have them in their house or car. But just as I prefer that you have the freedom to be without, I prefer that I have the freedom to pursue my hobby, unfettered.

So we agree that it doesn't matter what laws you enact. Criminals will find a way around them. Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

We agree that the definition of criminal is someone who breaks the law. That really isn't at issue. If you really don't want to pass laws because criminals will break them, then you're fundamentally attacking the rule of law itself.

Quote:

Question #2: What makes your new laws better that those laws already on the books? Or is that question "irrelevant"?

As I've said multiple times, a uniform federal rule makes the same law applicable to everyone everywhere in the country. Every gun purchase everywhere gets a background check. This means no lax-rule states vs. strict-rule states. It's an inherently better and simpler system.

Quote:

We've seen facts quoted here that show crime increasing in areas with stricter gun laws enacted, while crime rates have decreased in areas where more user-friendly concealed-carry laws are in force.

I've also said before, I'm not going to play the stats game. The fact of the matter is I could bring a variety of studies that show the opposite, and how the firearm homicide numbers in the us, increased or decreased are still factors of 4 to 50 above the rest of the first world, and how that "15% increase" in the UK still leaves them at 1/4 the firearm murder rate of the US. Both sides have arsenals of studies and counter studies, and neither will hold much faith in the other's. I could spend the time attacking your stats source by source, and then provide my own stats, which you would attack source by source. I've been there and done that other places, and I'm sure you have as well.

Quote:

We've seen actual data from a wide variety of test groups (American cities, suburbs, and rural populations) statistically sufficient to represent the country as a whole.

This is simply false, for reasons I've given more than once.

Quote:

The data doesn't support your position. So far, the only thing supporting your position is your word, your opinion. If that's the case, why should I take your opinion over actual hard, empirical data?

"My position" is the proposed federal rule of background checks on all gun sales. You've cited no data that "doesn't support that position" - just insistence that the hodgepodge of state laws is somehow an appropriate proxy. You've brought no evidence such a federal law could not work as intended. The "hard empirical data" you claim to bring is simply not applicable to the question at hand. Your stating things as fact does not make them so.

Why should you consider my opinion? I think I have both logic and simplicity on my side. You clearly don't agree. Frankly, you wrote me off a while ago, so it's not worth talking into the wind anymore.

Joined: 10/14/2010Posts: 944Location: JUST A CLICK AWAY, United States

Talking with a friend today, think he may be correct in this.. guns will not vanish, but the high capacity clips will soon disappear.. As stated before, I enjoy hunting, whether its with a; rifle, bow, ore a camera,I also love to shoot target,& like so many others I reload my own ammo... One could always look into how Sweden deals with firearms / assault weapons..

Joined: 4/30/2012Posts: 329Location: under bright lights, United States

Fighting firepower with firepower is a shot not worth taking. Arming teachers goes against everything we should be teaching children. If guns don't kill people, people kill people, then it follows that guns don't protect people, people protect people. Guns and bullets cannot take responsibility for this problem and cant be held responsible for the solution. They are not people. This is our responsibility as members of a society governed by laws created by We the People, not the NRA or weapons manufacturers. Associations and manufacturers will never be shot at. They are not people.

Our country has progressed since 1776-1783, thank god, but not that much if we allow every person on the street access to assault weapons designed for nothing but mass killing of people in seconds, and no sane person can read into the 2nd amendment as granting that right.

Fighting firepower with firepower is a shot not worth taking. Arming teachers goes against everything we should be teaching children. If guns don't kill people, people kill people, then it follows that guns don't protect people, people protect people. Guns and bullets cannot take responsibility for this problem and cant be held responsible for the solution. They are not people. This is our responsibility as members of a society governed by laws created by We the People, not the NRA or weapons manufacturers. Associations and manufacturers will never be shot at. They are not people.

You're absolutely right. It does take people to protect people. And since the people we need protection from will be armed, it follows that the protectors will need to be armed as well. It's a good thing that I carry a policeman around with me everywhere I go...

Oh, wait. I don't. They're too big, for one thing, and they eat like horses. So damn... I guess I will probably have to look out for my own needs; at least until the policeman I've called shows up. It'll only take anywhere from a few minutes to a half-hour or so.

The "weapons manufacturers" and the NRA that some people like to demonize aren't just faceless machines. They really are people. They're people like me. We live, laugh, love our children and our spouses. We love life and many of us have taken vows to defend it to our last breath. I don't know anyone who posts here, really, and I wouldn't know you if I ever saw you on the street, but I can pretty much assure you that if I ever saw you on the street, and you needed my help, I would defend you the same way as I would defend my own family. It's doing what's right.

It's not the gun. It's the people. It's the people who don't have a sense of right and wrong. I've read stuff about ban guns because their sole function is to kill people. Which isn't really true, but ok. Still, it's the person, not the gun.

A penis has one main function. To get hard, push inside a vagina, and ejaculate... procreation. After women are raped, do we scream that all penises should be cut off to avoid future rapes? Of course not. All our lives we've been told that rape is not about sex. It's about control and power. We don't blame the cock, we blame the person that used his cock. The man. Something inside of him is wrong, not his dick. We don't say of a rapist, "oh, he must have mental illness so let's get him some help." No, we want to lock his ass up and throw away the key. And that's what we should fucking want. A rapist rapes because he wants power. POWER and control.

Misuse of guns is the same thing. It's about power, for those that feel that have none. It doesn't matter what weapon they use, it's not the fault of the weapon. And taking away weapons or guns is not going to alter the mind of the person that seeks power in this manner. He WILL find another way. Taking away the guns will change nothing. NOTHING. AT. ALL. That's just the surface issue. It's the deep down reasons why people have become so desensitized that they'd even consider murder as a viable behavior. These mass murders are not about gun control, mental health, the second amendment, the NRA, assault weapons, clips, movie theater or school security. It's about power.

I apologize for using rape as an analogy, it's a disgusting fucking thing. Both are disgusting things. But blabbering on about the tool used to commit any crime or heinous act is fruitless. The more useful debate should be WHY is this happening and WHY is it seeming to happen more frequently. It's not happening because guns exist, it's happening because bad people exist.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.